Outlander fans come in two varieties: those who 'see' the story and those who 'hear' the story. If you're a seer, then you have a clear picture in your head of what all the characters look like and any deviation from this is apt to be disappointing to you because they will probably not live up to your ideals. Others of us are hearers, and, while we have a vague notion of what everyone looks like, it's not as powerful as the seer's ideas. I happen to fall into the hearer camp. I know, generally, things like Claire has curly hair and Jamie is a big redhead, but the details are not really there as far as how they actually look. Don't get me wrong - I want the people in any movie to be pretty - I'm certainly not interested in Marty Feldman (God rest his soul) as JAMMF... But, as long as they get the big details right (and I consider acting ability a super big detail), then I'm pretty much ok with the other stuff. So, what I'm saying is - KH would be ok - if she can somehow manage to avoid the snarkiness that comes across in some of her roles. Claire needs to pull off being assertive and standing out without being too much of an eye-roller... "Feisty wee bitch, is she no?" Anyway, we need a good script and an actress that manage a decent accent. I don't really care how she looks. (Besides, I secretly think I'm Claire, so, unless they're gonna cast me in that role, I'm not gonna get too excited about it!)
I'm there with ye Christie! I am also a 'hearer'. And you're right, CH has a snarkiness about her! Hopefully that wouldn't come through a portrayal of Claire...
I'm another "hearer" and I am warming to the idea of KH as Claire - spurred on by the fact that I want it made (so I can really "see" the story) and it has a darn good chance to being made if someone of her Q Score attaches to the project.
OK, have had not a second till now to air my feelings on this whole thing, but now that I'm at the computer with a bit of time, here goes.
At this point, I'm in the anti-KH camp--but NOT (and let me repeat: N-O-T) because she is not British. I have to sidetrack here and say that I'm hearing there is now a FB page devoted to "only a UK actress should play Claire," and to that I respond: "WTF??????" Not only do I think that's nuts, as an actor myself I find it borderline offensive. Why don't all the members of that group tell Meryl Streep that only a Polish actress should play the title role in Sophie's Choice, or tell Renee Zellwegger that only a UK actress should play Bridget Jones, or tell Russell Crowe that only an American actor should play John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind," or...you get the point. Here are my requirements for the role of Claire: the actress should be able to do the accent, should be approximately 8 inches shorter than the Jamie and have amazing chemistry with him, should look more or less 27, should have a "period" look, and should be able to act. As far as nationality, I could give a flying fig.
OK, so. Ms. Heigl. Here are my thoughts: • I DON'T think she's a bad actress. Trying to think of what I've seen her in...she was good in Knocked Up. I've seen maybe half an hour of Grey's Anatomy ever, and she was decent in it. My question is: Does she read too contemporary? I honestly don't know, but it's a concern. (part 2 TK)
part 2: • This is my biggest concern, and it has to do with Ms. Heigl's position on the Hollywood food chain. Right now, she's arguably top three in terms of the traditional "rom-com." Call her the next Jennifer Aniston--if someone is making a romantic comedy, they're going to consider her for the role. And quite honestly, it's understandable--and even admirable--that she wants to stretch and break out of the role of rom-com princess. THAT SAID...is the role of Claire, a huge, leading role in an arguably challenging period piece the best way to meet that goal, both for her and for us, the fans of Outlander? Think about her status in Hollywood. OK...I think all of us have been hoping for an Outlander that's, for lack of a better term, literary. My rant on UK actors notwithstanding, I think I understand where the sentiment is coming from: people want to see an Outlander that's true to the story, that's more highbrow and less Judd Apatow. And highbrow is not exactly a term I would use to describe Katherine Heigl. IMO, casting KH puts Outlander in a different category. It's simply not going to draw the type of talent (ie, classically trained actors as opposed to Hollywood rom-com royalty) that I think most Outlander fans have been hoping for.
• My last point coincides with what Christie hit squarely on the head: SNARKY. Now, this may be completely unfair of me, given the "the best actor should get the job" rant I had above--and I'll freely admit that--but the fact is that from what I know of Katherine Heigl, I don't like her. Not one bit. I COMPLETELY agree with Christie in that she comes off snarky, not only in roles but in real life. She uses the press like a cheap 'ho--that NY Times interview was classic KH. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing when she threw in that quote ("Scotland in 2012? What do you think?")--I'd put money on that she's pissed at something regarding negotiations for the role and threw that quote out to get public support behind her or whatever. Idaknow, at the end of the day, she just rubs me the wrong way, y'know? I'd like to be a little more behind the actress who plays Claire.
i certainly can't deny that bagging and tagging KH will lead to more press for the film--and certainly more $$$. But as of this moment, I can't say that I'm onboard. You know, I hope she proves me wrong, but...I'd rather see no movie at all than a movie that's even 1% less than what the book deserves. So I'll guess, to coin a phrase, we'll have to W&S.
I would not go to a movie just because KH is in it, nor would some of the people I know (I did an informal poll). So, I am kinda confused about the fact that the movie people told DG if KH signs up for it, then the movie will get made. But, they know their business, so I will take their word for it.
I have seen many actresses, when interviewed, say there are so few good roles for women. The role of Claire has got to be considered a plum role. It would seem that there would be many actresses vying for this role and the movie people should have their pick, not just relying on any one actress.
In any event, there seems to be more PR about the whole thing now, so maybe KH will wind up having to fight for the role.
OK, here's my take on this whole 'controversy' -
ReplyDeleteOutlander fans come in two varieties: those who 'see' the story and those who 'hear' the story. If you're a seer, then you have a clear picture in your head of what all the characters look like and any deviation from this is apt to be disappointing to you because they will probably not live up to your ideals. Others of us are hearers, and, while we have a vague notion of what everyone looks like, it's not as powerful as the seer's ideas. I happen to fall into the hearer camp. I know, generally, things like Claire has curly hair and Jamie is a big redhead, but the details are not really there as far as how they actually look. Don't get me wrong - I want the people in any movie to be pretty - I'm certainly not interested in Marty Feldman (God rest his soul) as JAMMF... But, as long as they get the big details right (and I consider acting ability a super big detail), then I'm pretty much ok with the other stuff. So, what I'm saying is - KH would be ok - if she can somehow manage to avoid the snarkiness that comes across in some of her roles. Claire needs to pull off being assertive and standing out without being too much of an eye-roller... "Feisty wee bitch, is she no?" Anyway, we need a good script and an actress that manage a decent accent. I don't really care how she looks. (Besides, I secretly think I'm Claire, so, unless they're gonna cast me in that role, I'm not gonna get too excited about it!)
I'm there with ye Christie! I am also a 'hearer'. And you're right, CH has a snarkiness about her! Hopefully that wouldn't come through a portrayal of Claire...
ReplyDeleteI'm just not sure she gets to be the one with Jamie!
ReplyDeleteChristie: I couldn't have said it better myself! (I am a "hearer" too.) And OMG Marty Feldman as Jamie--ROFLMAO!!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm another "hearer" and I am warming to the idea of KH as Claire - spurred on by the fact that I want it made (so I can really "see" the story) and it has a darn good chance to being made if someone of her Q Score attaches to the project.
ReplyDeleteOK, have had not a second till now to air my feelings on this whole thing, but now that I'm at the computer with a bit of time, here goes.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I'm in the anti-KH camp--but NOT (and let me repeat: N-O-T) because she is not British. I have to sidetrack here and say that I'm hearing there is now a FB page devoted to "only a UK actress should play Claire," and to that I respond: "WTF??????" Not only do I think that's nuts, as an actor myself I find it borderline offensive. Why don't all the members of that group tell Meryl Streep that only a Polish actress should play the title role in Sophie's Choice, or tell Renee Zellwegger that only a UK actress should play Bridget Jones, or tell Russell Crowe that only an American actor should play John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind," or...you get the point. Here are my requirements for the role of Claire: the actress should be able to do the accent, should be approximately 8 inches shorter than the Jamie and have amazing chemistry with him, should look more or less 27, should have a "period" look, and should be able to act. As far as nationality, I could give a flying fig.
OK, so. Ms. Heigl. Here are my thoughts:
• I DON'T think she's a bad actress. Trying to think of what I've seen her in...she was good in Knocked Up. I've seen maybe half an hour of Grey's Anatomy ever, and she was decent in it. My question is: Does she read too contemporary? I honestly don't know, but it's a concern.
(part 2 TK)
part 2:
ReplyDelete• This is my biggest concern, and it has to do with Ms. Heigl's position on the Hollywood food chain. Right now, she's arguably top three in terms of the traditional "rom-com." Call her the next Jennifer Aniston--if someone is making a romantic comedy, they're going to consider her for the role. And quite honestly, it's understandable--and even admirable--that she wants to stretch and break out of the role of rom-com princess. THAT SAID...is the role of Claire, a huge, leading role in an arguably challenging period piece the best way to meet that goal, both for her and for us, the fans of Outlander? Think about her status in Hollywood. OK...I think all of us have been hoping for an Outlander that's, for lack of a better term, literary. My rant on UK actors notwithstanding, I think I understand where the sentiment is coming from: people want to see an Outlander that's true to the story, that's more highbrow and less Judd Apatow. And highbrow is not exactly a term I would use to describe Katherine Heigl. IMO, casting KH puts Outlander in a different category. It's simply not going to draw the type of talent (ie, classically trained actors as opposed to Hollywood rom-com royalty) that I think most Outlander fans have been hoping for.
• My last point coincides with what Christie hit squarely on the head: SNARKY. Now, this may be completely unfair of me, given the "the best actor should get the job" rant I had above--and I'll freely admit that--but the fact is that from what I know of Katherine Heigl, I don't like her. Not one bit. I COMPLETELY agree with Christie in that she comes off snarky, not only in roles but in real life. She uses the press like a cheap 'ho--that NY Times interview was classic KH. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing when she threw in that quote ("Scotland in 2012? What do you think?")--I'd put money on that she's pissed at something regarding negotiations for the role and threw that quote out to get public support behind her or whatever. Idaknow, at the end of the day, she just rubs me the wrong way, y'know? I'd like to be a little more behind the actress who plays Claire.
i certainly can't deny that bagging and tagging KH will lead to more press for the film--and certainly more $$$. But as of this moment, I can't say that I'm onboard. You know, I hope she proves me wrong, but...I'd rather see no movie at all than a movie that's even 1% less than what the book deserves. So I'll guess, to coin a phrase, we'll have to W&S.
I would not go to a movie just because KH is in it, nor would some of the people I know (I did an informal poll). So, I am kinda confused about the fact that the movie people told DG if KH signs up for it, then the movie will get made. But, they know their business, so I will take their word for it.
ReplyDeleteI have seen many actresses, when interviewed, say there are so few good roles for women. The role of Claire has got to be considered a plum role. It would seem that there would be many actresses vying for this role and the movie people should have their pick, not just relying on any one actress.
In any event, there seems to be more PR about the whole thing now, so maybe KH will wind up having to fight for the role.
Thanks for the info
ReplyDelete